Talk:The Great Suburb Group Massacre/2010

The new bit

What's up with working with that new template? It seems utterly unnecessary, adding allot of needless extra administrative work. The template requires you to fill in the groups, the date of the contact, and the date of 2 weeks after that of each group. This is completely redundant, in 9 of ten cases all the groups in that suburb will have been contacted on the same day (like here), having to add the date separately for each group isn't needed.

The entire template on its own is pointless, because all the information it gives is already easily available. Example: I want to know about the suburb massacre in Gatcombeton. I go to main massacre page. I scroll to NW-1. I see when it was done and by who (Yonnua, 26 jan). I click on Gatcombeton (yes I click), and see which groups are active in that suburb. Now in case I want to know when to check back for the responses, I use my brain and add 14 days to 26 jan. There, exactly the same data without using the template.

So what exactly is the point? It's extra work, that contributes exactly zero. --Thadeous Oakley 15:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's some pretty bitchin' code work.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thad, the idea was that we wanted a point of contact on all of the suburb pages themselves, since a lot of groups check their own suburb pages, but don't check their own group pages very often. It is some extra work, but we're hoping that it'll make more people aware of what's going on and reduce the amount of complaining that happens afterwards. The suburb page can also be used as a quick checkpoint for each suburb, that way anyone involved in the GSM can check it and see what the status is for that suburb easily, rather than having to double-check each group page individually. —Aichon— 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...starting already?

It would've been nice to have a few day's heads-up that we were starting, since things aren't exactly ready. For instance, that new template needs to be moved to the main namespace, rather than being in my sandbox still. Also, we hadn't settled on everything that needed to be done yet (how to handle bad logos, how to handle groups that have no wiki page, etc.), and we needed to bring in more people to generate a consensus before we got started. Sure, the people involved in the discussions up to that point had reached agreement, but they hardly represent everyone involved in the project. There were still things that needed to be discussed before we were going to be ready to start.

Oh well. Guess I'll move the template to the main namespace and will correct the links for all of the suburb pages that have had it posted already, but this week is lousy for me. I doubt I'll be able to contribute at all. —Aichon— 16:28, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How about doing the other stuff in different projects? If we just keep this as it is, then it won't become too complicated and overbearing. One thing at a time, I say.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

And that's what we generally thought for some of those things, but, it doesn't work for everything that was still open for discussion. For instance, we were still up in the air on how to handle groups that were in multiple suburbs, and wanted to talk about ways to handle them, rather than letting them get away with a blanket statement of, "yes, we're active," to cover all of the suburbs they're listed in. Now that the GSM is smaller in scale, we figured now might be a good time to finally address that issue. We've already missed our chance though, since a few groups that are active in multiple suburbs have already confirmed. —Aichon— 17:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

That was my understanding as well, that the other things were being done as separate projects. As far as groups that don't have wiki pages, I think the best we can do is just hope they catch the table on the talk page. Anyways, the page is up now. Aichon, make any corrections to the template you feel are necessary and we'll work with it. I basically just wanted to slap templates on one district so there was a solid example. On the multiple suburb thing, we could just change the {{Group Active?}} template to specify what suburb(s) the group is active in when they reply, and I can re-contact those groups that already confirmed to get that straightened out. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

To temper what I said earlier, I'm not upset or mad at you by any means, I was just completely taken by surprise to see you take so much initiative in getting it started. I figured you'd get the ball rolling on the final part of the discussions, then would start on it around the beginning of February, as was originally planned. :)

Anyway, I've already corrected the template, so no worries there. Just use it as your instructions say. The instructions need to be amended to include some information regarding Removed and Confirmed for the "d" variables, however. In terms of groups that don't have a proper wiki listing, the consensus before now was to simply remove them, so I'd do that in situations like this one by simply marking them as Removed and removing them in advance. As for groups in multiple suburbs, I have no idea how we can organize it at a large scale. —Aichon— 22:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick reminder to everyone

When a group confirms that they're active on their talk page, you should CHANGE the {{Group Active?}} template to be {{Group Active!}} rather than adding the template with the ! in addition to the ? template. It messes with the categorization otherwise, and also clutters up the pages unnecessarily. I've corrected all of the groups our team has confirmed up to this point, so you don't need to go hunting through your groups again, and have made the instructions more explicit on that point. —Aichon— 23:23, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The old templates mess it up still --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 23:29, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Only in cases where the group was once labeled as Inactive, since otherwise they did just what I said as well. But yes, you're correct for those formerly Inactive groups. Still, if we ever did get around to cleaning it up, it'll be one less thing to do, and it does look less cluttered. —Aichon— 00:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

DORIS??

Didn't DORIS disband a while back? They're still listed as an active group in Lockettside. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 19:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Give them a template. If they respond or not, it's up to them. 19:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I did. Was just wondering. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 20:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was a triumph.

I'm making a note here: HUGE SUCCESS. It's hard to overstate my satisfaction. —Aichon— 18:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but I'm still waiting on one group in Santlerville. :( --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

They added themselves to the list on January 24th, three days before you contacted groups in that suburb. It's probably safe to assume they're active still. :P —Aichon— 18:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Right, I'll close it up then.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I was just thinking. For next time, we should change the message we post to the suburb news areas. Instead of merely saying which groups were deleted, we should say something like, "If you're unsure of why your group was removed, please check your group's discussion page. For additional information, check here." Most of the people re-adding groups seem to be disgruntled because they have no idea why they were removed in the first place, and I think changing the comment to something like that would go a long way to fielding those sorts of questions. —Aichon— 20:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Excellent work guys. Looking at Pitneybank brings a tear to my eye. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Malhalla in West Grayside

We're active, just not so much on the Wiki! --Brian mercat 06:21, 6 April 2010 (BST)